The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has raised controversy on whether the law support or damage the health insurance for all Americans. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) or commonly known as Obamacare is a federal law signed by President Barack Obama on 2010. According to the website Obama Care Facts this law “creates a mandate for large employers to provide insurance, the expansion of Medicaid, and the opening of Health Insurance Marketplaces to help subsidize private insurance.” Its main goal is to improve and provide affordable health care insurance for all Americans but due to the divide opinions about this law, congress has judge over 50 repeal attempts. As a last attempt to overthrow the law, the Republican Party from
…show more content…
Authors use loaded language to lead emotional reactions for selected terms that can greatly influence their audience response and opinion for the argument presented. A constant use of loaded language and the prepotent tone is used by the editorial at the beginning of the article with the purpose to re-state the negative impression that most of the New York Times’ audience already has about the petitioners in the King vs Burwell case. For example, the author uses loaded language in the title “the supreme court saves the Obama care, again”. He emphasized the word “again” by placing it at the very last of the title and using a tone that insinuates it’s been happening in repetitive occasions and which outcome has been the same, making it seems as something irrelevant to the case. The ‘Editorial Board’ use sophisticate words with negative connotation at the introduction to make readers prejudge the opposites as a ridiculous group which claiming is a joke that should not be taken seriously. In the first body paragraph the author introduces the issue and define the legal argument as “specious” or as something apparently good though lacking from real worthiness to the case, then later on the second paragraph refers the opposites’ claim as “preposterous” leading the readers to think the review of the issue is senseless or an …show more content…
Ad hominem is use to switch the discussion form criticize the argument or ideas to directly criticized the person themselves and by doing so it criticized their argument. This tactic is used by the Editorial Board, when the author refer the opposites to the law as “Legally frivolous” just by taking the opposite side in account during the court in 2012. This comment against the justices is unnecessary and pointless from the argument discussed. Then, continues questioning the justice’s personal interest about the law by saying “of course it was the justices’ choice to hear challengers to the law in 2012 and this term” (Editorial Board, 2). Judging by the tone and critic to the justices we can appreciate how the editorial try to justify the justice’s decision by criticized them first but the connection of their character has no barrier to their argument whatsoever. In another occasion, the author intend dismiss the contrary argument by stating that the opposites “fabricate an alternate history out of thin air”. Thus we can see that the author intents discredit the opposite side by invalidating their argument on saying they create an excuse out of nowhere to oppose to the law but this claim itself lacks from congruent evidence to support this statement and ends up as an Ad hominem attack. This repetitive pattern of ad
Authors use loaded language to lead emotional reactions for selected terms that can greatly influence their audience response and opinion for the argument presented. A constant use of loaded language and the prepotent tone is used by the editorial at the beginning of the article with the purpose to re-state the negative impression that most of the New York Times’ audience already has about the petitioners in the King vs Burwell case. For example, the author uses loaded language in the title “the supreme court saves the Obama care, again”. He emphasized the word “again” by placing it at the very last of the title and using a tone that insinuates it’s been happening in repetitive occasions and which outcome has been the same, making it seems as something irrelevant to the case. The ‘Editorial Board’ use sophisticate words with negative connotation at the introduction to make readers prejudge the opposites as a ridiculous group which claiming is a joke that should not be taken seriously. In the first body paragraph the author introduces the issue and define the legal argument as “specious” or as something apparently good though lacking from real worthiness to the case, then later on the second paragraph refers the opposites’ claim as “preposterous” leading the readers to think the review of the issue is senseless or an …show more content…
Ad hominem is use to switch the discussion form criticize the argument or ideas to directly criticized the person themselves and by doing so it criticized their argument. This tactic is used by the Editorial Board, when the author refer the opposites to the law as “Legally frivolous” just by taking the opposite side in account during the court in 2012. This comment against the justices is unnecessary and pointless from the argument discussed. Then, continues questioning the justice’s personal interest about the law by saying “of course it was the justices’ choice to hear challengers to the law in 2012 and this term” (Editorial Board, 2). Judging by the tone and critic to the justices we can appreciate how the editorial try to justify the justice’s decision by criticized them first but the connection of their character has no barrier to their argument whatsoever. In another occasion, the author intend dismiss the contrary argument by stating that the opposites “fabricate an alternate history out of thin air”. Thus we can see that the author intents discredit the opposite side by invalidating their argument on saying they create an excuse out of nowhere to oppose to the law but this claim itself lacks from congruent evidence to support this statement and ends up as an Ad hominem attack. This repetitive pattern of ad